Debates of March 10, 2005 (day 53)

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for North Slave, that the motion be amended by striking out “that Bill 17 be read for the third time” and substituting “that Bill 17 be not now read a third time, but that it be read a third time this day three months hence.”

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I make this motion today because I do not agree that we are ready to give Bill 17 third reading. This bill has not been through an appropriate public review process. I find it very disturbing that five amendments were made to Bill 17 yesterday during Committee of the Whole debate. To me it is totally inappropriate that these amendments, which change the context of the bill, were made without an opportunity for public input. When do our constituents get to have a say? For example, an amendment was made to the Wildlife Act, Mr. Speaker. That’s a very key act for a lot of people and it’s unbelievable that we short circuited the democratic process by not having a public hearing on something that important. There is a dangerous precedence that is being set by not even allowing the public an opportunity to be informed about a major change to legislation, let alone the opportunity to speak to it. How can we justify this? If we’re going to evade the democratic process this time, what’s next, Mr. Speaker? In my opinion, this bill should be reintroduced in the next session so that people can be given an opportunity to appear before the standing committee and speak to it in it’s final form, including the amendments that were made yesterday. It’s the right thing to do, Mr. Speaker. Reintroduce the bill so our constituents can have a say in the legislation that’s being made here. Mahsi cho.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the amendment. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll be voting in favour of the amendment. I do think that the way these amendments came forward on the floor of the House in Committee of the Whole is an aberration to how we normally deal with amendments to legislation in our committees. It may only be a convention, it may only be a tradition that we don’t make those kind of significant amendments in Committee of the Whole, but the fact is normally those are carried out in committee and we have diverged from normal process here. For that reason I do agree with the Member that we do need to give constituents a chance for input and further public consultation. I will support the motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the amendment. The honourable Member for North Slave, Mr. Zoe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be supporting the motion brought forward. This bill is a very sensitive issue and, as my colleague has indicated, I think we should go back to our aboriginal and municipal governments, get their input, and from the general public again. It doesn’t hurt to wait three months and get reintroduced…

Hear! Hear!

…in our May sitting. On that same issue, I wonder if the government also would consider having their Members having a free vote on this. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Zoe. To the amendment. The honourable Member for Range Lake, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I will not be supporting this motion, Mr. Speaker, because as I stated earlier I do not believe the amendments yesterday did change the bill substantially. But more importantly, Mr. Speaker, I just need to make it very clear because the suggestions and assertions being made here are very serious and I think they should be answered to. Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that even the committee, I have to tell you for the House that the committee agreed that the bill was ready for Committee of the Whole. That’s how it ended up in this committee. It was moved to the committee by the committee. There were no indications there that would suggest anything other than normal democratic process. I should also point out that it’s a very routine procedure that bills are amended in Committee of the Whole all the time. We just did that in supplementary appropriation yesterday. That is what we’re supposed to do. We make amendments to bills all the time as long as it does not change the nature and substance of the bill. I don’t believe the amendments that were made yesterday do that.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like reiterate once again because I think it’s really important that there be no impression put out there that the public did not have a chance to respond to this. Mr. Speaker, this was introduced last October. That was six months ago. It’s not like this bill was introduced two weeks ago and it’s being rammed through the House. It was introduced in October. It was advertised all through November. There were public announcements on the radio in February for all the public hearings we had. I’m compelled to say, as the chair of the committee, that I could appreciate everybody not agreeing on this bill, but I think the objections to the process are verging on something more serious. It really seems to be questioning the conduct of the committee. Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Members to be more generous about how they regard the work of a committee. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. To the amendment. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to say two things. The first thing is I'm very supportive of Bill 17…and I stress, wait for the second. I can't see why we would stop or stall, because I really believe in rights and the acceptance of rights. But I can't say that on one hand, without giving my colleagues the extra couple of months that they have asked for. That's all that they have asked for. The problem is what do we do if it prorogues, and that's exactly it. I need to hear how it's brought back on the paper by someone who is speaking in favour of the delay, how we assure that that can be brought back in May. If I can be assured of that, I can wait until May. But I can't go strictly on a leap of faith that it will return in May. So unless I hear that today, I'll be voting against it. So somebody needs to speak to how it will be back on the paper, and I will vote in favour of the amendment.

---Applause

To the amendment. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Braden.

Mr. Speaker, it should be very clear that we are about to prorogue, and approval of this motion would take it off the order paper. It would die, we would have to begin the process all over again, and I do not see at all the benefit of that. So I will be voting against this motion.

I think Ms. Lee captured what we should be looking at here, and the objections are to process, and not in this venue, Mr. Speaker, to the substance of it.

Standing committee chose to allow all of those amendments, those five amendments that the Member for Nahendeh talked about. By the way, I think three of them were essentially typographical errors; they are of little substance. The Standing Committee on Social Programs said there are aspects of this that a broader membership of the Legislative Assembly should be allowed to speak to. We are not going to pre-empt or presume anything on their behalf; we're going to bring that debate into Committee of the Whole which, in effect, made it much more public and much more accessible for all Members and for the public to hear and see. So I think the procedural point that Social Programs committee sort of missed the boat by not adopting these amendments in committee was, in fact, a very positive and accommodating step and we have all benefited by that.

So I really urge Members to consider what value this will bring to this bill. It was made amply clear, in my listening to what was going on, that we can take this proactive step as a Legislative Assembly and change these laws now, or sit back and wait for a court or other jurisdictions to make those changes for us.

Three months...I'm sorry; if we follow this, the bill will have to start all over again. It could be at least another six months, maybe another year before we could see this back on the order paper to allow the kind of full public debate that is being advocated here. I do not see the benefit of it. This is a great exchange, Mr. Speaker, but I can't vote in support of this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. To the amendment.

Question.

Question is being called. All those in favour of the amendment? All those opposed to the amendment? The amendment is defeated.

---Defeated

To the motion.

Recorded vote.

A recorded vote is being requested. Mr. Clerk. All those in favour, please rise.

Mr. Dent; Mr. McLeod, Deh Cho; Mr. Bell; Mr. Ramsay; Mr. Villeneuve; Ms. Lee; Mr. Braden; Mr. Hawkins; Mr. Miltenberger; Mr. Krutko; Mr. Roland; Mr. Handley.

All those opposed, please rise.

Mrs. Groenewegen; Mr. Pokiak; Mr. Zoe; Mr. Menicoche; Mr. Yakeleya; Mr. McLeod, Inuvik Twin Lakes.

All those abstaining, please rise. To the motion: all those in favour, 12; all those opposed, six; abstaining, zero. The motion is carried.

---Carried